75187 BB-8 - UCS or not?

Hello, everyone! Today I am bringing up a subject that could determine the future of one particular set in our database.

As you may know, 75187 BB-8 is a large-scale droid set that was just released on September 1st. However, even though we currently have it under the Last Jedi subtheme, there is no doubt there are huge differences between it and the other six minifig-scale sets in the wave. That begs the question... should we label it an Ultimate Collector Series set?

The facts:

It is a large-scale, System-built figure done in the style of 10225 R2-D2, a UCS set from 2012.

Like R2, it is built in a similar scale, has a display plaque, and includes the minifig version of the titular droid as well.

Unlike other recent UCS sets, it does not have a gold badge on the box, and is available in most retail locations rather than only at shop.LEGO.com and LEGO Brand Stores.

While released alongside the first wave of Last Jedi sets, BB-8 does not only go with this new film but is representative of the entire sequel trilogy. So, is the Last Jedi subtheme really the most appropriate place for it?

We are aware of the attachments many may have to the UCS series, as well as what may qualify as a set and what doesn't (just look at Assault on Hoth). However, through your opinion we can come up with a designation that most can agree with.

So the real question is - The Last Jedi, or Ultimate Collector Series?

Do all UCS-tagged sets have the gold badge or other UCS-identifying markings on the box? If no, I would tag BB-8 as UCS, because of the plaque, the minifig and the stand. But it's just a little too big to count as a BrickHead(z) ;)

Do all UCS-tagged sets have the gold badge or other UCS-identifying markings on the box? If no, I would tag BB-8 as UCS, because of the plaque, the minifig and the stand. But it's just a little too big to count as a BrickHead(z) ;)

Why does this merit a topic? As many others have stated, this clearly in't a UCS set, and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. It comes in regular packaging, with no UCS badge on the box as has been the trend in recent years, and in case anyone is thinking of the Falcon being a new trend; the box doesn't look like that either. The plaque doesn't fit with the style of the ones in literally every UCS set. I will concede that Lego are probably torn between wanting it to fit with the R2 and not wanting to take attention away from the Falcon, so they went with this kind of in-between.Still not a UCS.

@Matt89190 Why so aggressive? I think I made it clear that we know BB-8 is officially NOT a UCS set. But it does deserve to be grouped with them, for technical purposes, due to its style, quality and other reasons stated in the first post. No evidence? I gave it.

Also, who are the many others thinking it shouldn't be labelled as such? Most of what I see in this thread (and article comments) so far suggests otherwise.

No UCS badge on the box but clearly a UCS set like many others without badges in the Brickset database. As has been said already, it has the stand and the plaque and is large-scale. Looks great next to the UCS R2-D2 too:

@Matt89190 Why so aggressive? I think I made it clear that we know BB-8 is officially NOT a UCS set. But it does deserve to be grouped with them, for technical purposes, due to its style, quality and other reasons stated in the first post. No evidence? I gave it.

Also, who are the many others thinking it shouldn't be labelled as such? Most of what I see in this thread (and article comments) so far suggests otherwise.

This topic has merit; it's a healthy debate.

Really didn't mean to come off as aggressive; sorry! There's been a lot of talk about such things either in the Falcon rumours or SW discussion at one point (I forget which), so I'm just a little tired with the whole debate! I do apologise - reading that back, I did come off a tad harsh, but it genuinely wasn't meant that way.

I do, however, stand by the last bit about TLG being torn and going for a kind of middle ground.

LEGO evidently does not consider it an Ultimate Collector's Series set, as others have stated, so I would be hesitant to designate it a UCS set in the database. There is some room for debate concerning earlier sets as the UCS range was not truly defined until 2014 but it is now quite clearly branded and that branding is absent from #75187 BB-8.

Having said that, I absolutely agree that the new set includes a number of features which we can associate with the Ultimate Collector's Series. I imagine it lacks the branding simply because LEGO thought it was worthy of selling alongside standard retail sets to the widest possible audience.

@Matt89190 Why so aggressive? I think I made it clear that we know BB-8 is officially NOT a UCS set. But it does deserve to be grouped with them, for technical purposes, due to its style, quality and other reasons stated in the first post. No evidence? I gave it.

Also, who are the many others thinking it shouldn't be labelled as such? Most of what I see in this thread (and article comments) so far suggests otherwise.

This topic has merit; it's a healthy debate.

Really didn't mean to come off as aggressive; sorry! There's been a lot of talk about such things either in the Falcon rumours or SW discussion at one point (I forget which), so I'm just a little tired with the whole debate! I do apologise - reading that back, I did come off a tad harsh, but it genuinely wasn't meant that way.

I do, however, stand by the last bit about TLG being torn and going for a kind of middle ground.

No apology needed! I totally agree. In the end, it all boils down to personal preference.

If it does have the UCS tag attached to it, then so should any other sets that are like Obi-Wan's Starfighter and Naboo Starfighter, these are both UCS so others similar to those should be included. Also why not apply it to other non-UCS sets like the Helicarrier, Tumbler, Disney Castle, Haunted House, Helm's Deep, etc that some people think are UCS based on size, a plaque, etc. It becomes meaningless if fans get to say what is what, and there will never be consensus.

It would display well with other UCS sets, esp given the plaque, display stand and scale of the set.

Is it an official UCS set? - nope.

For some reason, Lego omitted this from the UCS family. Maybe an error, maybe so other UCS sets could be produced under the UCS budgets internally...I would imagine the Falcon absorbed a lot of time/money within the Lego group.

I tend to agree with this, although given that the infamous poster produced by LEGO a while back retro-fitted the UCS designation to a number of sets which were never identified by LEGO (or the fan community) as UCS at the time of their release and lack many features characteristic of UCS models (plaque etc.) I don't think that LEGO necessarily know what's UCS either....

I tend to agree with this, although given that the infamous poster produced by LEGO a while back retro-fitted the UCS designation to a number of sets which were never identified by LEGO (or the fan community) as UCS at the time of their release and lack many features characteristic of UCS models (plaque etc.) I don't think that LEGO necessarily know what's UCS either....

Or that what qualifies a set as a UCS set changes through time.

A similar argument could be made to remove the UCS tag from the UCS Hoth set. It is officially a UCS set, but it seems many AFOLs hate it being one. It's a rehash of old sets, it's a play set not a display set, the plaque, ...

Would users of the database be happy if that was removed based on feelings, even if it ultimately leads to an inaccurate database?

Most UCS's are Direct To Consumer sets so I might as well include this set. While not a UCS, it's still big enough to act like one. (Diagon Alley)

2013 starts with another branching off! In fact, this year has a whole bunch of branching off! Anyways, the first DC Comics Super Heroes "UCS" is this set right here. (Arkham)

What did I say? A second branching off of "UCS" in the same year! (Orthanc)

What do you have it, 2014 starts with a branching off as well with The Simpsons!

Wow! Yet another branching off this year! This "UCS" gives us our first boat set for the title. (Sea Cow)

The last thing 2014 brought us was an actual UCS from DC Comics Super Heroes. So, it does make it in the line-up of themes with UCS's (Tumbler)

Marvel decides to make a UCS set this year with this right here. Right now, it's the only UCS Marvel set but, of course, it could still change. (Helicarrier)2016 kicks off relatively alright with this Ghostbusters set. It's nice that we get another branched off "UCS". Plus, this is the third biggest LEGO set made! (GBHQ)

2016 also gives us another DC Comics Super Heroes UCS! (Batcave)

And so we come to present day. This time, Pirates Of The Caribbean comes back from the dead along with this ghost ship in this set! (It's amazing how many branching offs we've had in about 4 years!) (Silent Mary)Ninjago City, Minecraft The Village and The Mountain Cave,Disney Castle, Silent Mary, GBHQ, Batcave, Quik-E-Mart and Simpsons House, Helicararrier, Tumbler, Sea Cow, Orthanc, Arkham, Diagon Alley, ..

If Silent Mary is UCS, then why not Destiny's Bounty (and Imperial Flagship)? Diagon Alley but not Hogwarts Castle? Why not all the Modulars, the Old Fishing Store, Big Ben, Taj Mahal, Tower Bridge, etc ...

One way to maybe appease most people would be to have the UCS label only applied to sets that have that badge on them. Hopefully everyone can agree that a set with the UCS label on is a UCS set (whether you think the set ought to be or not is another discussion).

Then also have another label, USC-like, or something similar, for sets that the database maintainers think are like UCS sets.

This would solve the issue for old sets that maybe Lego should have put the label on, and solve it for sets that look like UCS sets but are not.

Of course the argument will move to should it be classified as UCS-like, but hopefully less so as it is more clearly based on the maintainers decisions.

I dont think it needs to be such a black and white question. We could have a third option of 'Quasi-UCS' sets, including all the ones which are "near misses" like @CCC listed.

I'd really wonder whether that is a useful tag to have. Someone still has to decide whether or not to include the tag in the database, whether this should or that should. If it is just based on number of parts, then it is simple (but there is the argument about how many parts are needed). If it is based on getting a certain number of hits for different attributes, then what are those attributes going to be? Number of parts, contains a plaque, licensed or not, not minifig size, display rather than play, ... These are all debatable to some extent (How many parts to be UCS? What shape plaque? Is Ninjago Movie licensed? Is DS minifigure scale or not? Is DS or EV or Ninjago City for play or display?

And then does anyone really care if The Silent Mary is a "near miss UCS" set but the Imperial Flagship isn't? Or Diagon Alley is but Ninjago City isn't?

One way to maybe appease most people would be to have the UCS label only applied to sets that have that badge on them.

It is not the badge as such, but whether or not LEGO says they are. Early sets didn't have the badge, but had the branding printed on the box/manual. Some didn't have even that but appear on LEGO lists / posters of UCS sets. There can be no denying they are officially UCS if LEGO says they are. If LEGO puts out a new poster with UCS sets on it and BB-8 appears on it, then the designation should be updated, even though at present they have not used the branding.

Interesting discussion point. It's a slippery slope though. My 2 cents: Do not label as UCS as TLG have not labelled it as such. There are a few UCS Bricklists out there, folks can use their own criteria for Bricklists.

Just because it has a sticker plaque doesn't mean it's a ucs and is a lame reason to have it be. My batpod is more of a ucs than bb8 and if the label denotes ucs then we need to include the ucs vw beetle and the ucs triple-e into the conversation.

One way to maybe appease most people would be to have the UCS label only applied to sets that have that badge on them.

It is not the badge as such, but whether or not LEGO says they are. Early sets didn't have the badge, but had the branding printed on the box/manual. Some didn't have even that but appear on LEGO lists / posters of UCS sets. There can be no denying they are officially UCS if LEGO says they are. If LEGO puts out a new poster with UCS sets on it and BB-8 appears on it, then the designation should be updated, even though at present they have not used the branding.

Per your guidelines, Please make sure the DB is updated to remove the UCS tag from 10188, 10236, 10240, and 10221.

Just because it has a sticker plaque doesn't mean it's a ucs and is a lame reason to have it be. My batpod is more of a ucs than bb8 and if the label denotes ucs then we need to include the ucs vw beetle and the ucs triple-e into the conversation.

I don't have a horse in this race, as I have three categories I define my criteria on: Have, Want, Don't Care. I'm trying to find options that others might want.

The idea of finding it by year is all very well and good until we're 5 years down the line and we can't remember (or new people have yet to find out) which year it was released in and have pages and pages to look through, even when sorting by parts or filtering by sequel trilogy or whatever.

I don't care how Lego have categorised it, as they're inconsistent at best and ignorantly divisive at worst. If we have a tag that not many people use, then so be it - it's exactly a massive overhead to just have it hanging around, and if it's not useful, delete it. As to what might go in such a tag, I'd say all of them. ALL OF THEM! Anything that has ever been considered a 'near miss' or even a 'near near miss'. But not anything @CCC suggests, just because :-P (joking).

The idea of finding it by year is all very well and good until we're 5 years down the line and we can't remember (or new people have yet to find out) which year it was released in and have pages and pages to look through, even when sorting by parts or filtering by sequel trilogy or whatever

But as Dr Dave says, if you're looking for info on BB-8 wouldn't you just search for BB-8??Or if you're looking for large Star Wars sets, search for Star Wars and sort by parts descending. I think I must be missing the point of what a tag would achieve here?

I really really don't have a horse in the race... but I see what people are getting at.

At the end of the day, for me, UCS is a label that LEGO have come up with and have applied it illogically. The logical part of me says the database should only have the UCS tag on sets LEGO have deemed to be UCS.

But I know there are a group of sets that are for "collectors" and fit a certain pattern. And many of those aren't necessarily Star Wars, and are not labelled UCS.

Or if you're looking for large Star Wars sets, search for Star Wars and sort by parts descending. I think I must be missing the point of what a tag would achieve here?

But BB-8 isn't a large set, so it would be way down the list.

I think people who consider BB-8 a UCS style set are considering it on many parameters, not size, but the display stand, the plaque, the style, and so on, making it something that collectors would display.

That same definition fits sets like the BatMobile which isn't "UCS" but is that sort of display piece that people keep on a shelf to show people.

I have no idea what to call such a tag, except "detolf" springs to mind :-D

The main set I, as a collector, have displayed for the last year or so, is Ragana's Magic Shadow Castle. Should that be labelled as a collector's set just because I think it's a worthy display item? What constitutes a display item will differ for each person.

Is the plaque the main point of debate? Why not just do a "Plaque" tag then?

Brickset.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, the Amazon.com.ca, Inc. Associates Program and the Amazon EU Associates Programme, which are affiliate advertising programs designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.